AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Thu 04/13/17


Total Messages Posted: 3



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 07:33 AM - Re: Interesting thread on overvoltage event (Jan de Jong)
     2. 01:43 PM - Re: Is a battery contactor really needed? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     3. 09:29 PM - Re: Is a battery contactor really needed? (rv8ch)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:33:55 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Interesting thread on overvoltage event
    From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong@casema.nl>
    Rotax, LiFePO4 and OVP LiFePO4 batteries do not have a voltage limiting effect in OV situations as lead acid batteries do. In Rotax systems with builtin 20A PM alternator the capacitor on the output of the R/R can give a little time for OVP to operate. Some ruminations. With the standard 22mF, 25V capacitor there is 9V room above 16V. DO160-capable devices can take 40V for 100ms, 24V above 16V. Say the alternator is capable of an excess 14A or 14,000mC/s. The bus voltage will climb at 14,000/22 = 636V/s = 0.64V/ms. The 9V room to 25V is consumed in 9/0.64 = 14ms. With a 22mF, 40V capacitor there would be 24/0.64 = 37.5ms available until the DO160 limit is reached. If a 47mF/40V capacitor were installed the bus voltage would climb at 0.30V/ms and it would take 24/0.30 = 80ms for the DO160 limit to be reached. At 1500 RPM (idle) the ripple frequency is 10 x 1500 / 60 = 250Hz (there are 10 coils I believe), the ripple period is 4ms (each of these consists of 2 ripples, not quite identical (different rectifiers)). Shorter periods at higher RPM. A fast OVP would sample several ripple periods before deciding on an OV condition. Relay release time (10ms or so (diode/zener question)) would be added. In total 20 or 30ms may be enough. All in all limiting the potential voltage excursion with LiFePO4 using fast OVP and a somewhat oversized R/R capacitor seems doable for the small engine users among us. Don't know who supply fast OVP though. Don't know if nuisance tripping can be avoided. Jan de Jong


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:43:46 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Is a battery contactor really needed?
    At 03:35 PM 4/12/2017, you wrote: > >There seem to be a lot of advantages to not disconnecting the >alternator from the battery, so I'm wondering if the battery >contactor is really necessary? > >The things I can see as advantages are that it provides an extra >layer of protection from accidental starter engagement, and provides >a big switch that can be used to disconnect the battery from everything. > >I'm curious if there are other advantages that I'm not seeing. There is a legacy train of thought that goes back nearly 100 years . . . when on short final to the rocks, it's a good idea to suppress risk to the smallest values. Hence, the POH for most if not all TC aircraft calls for shutting off the fuel and killing the electrical system. Getting the electrical system stone-cold calls for independent, positive control over power sources like alternators, generators and . . . you guessed it . . . batteries. Of course, the contactor is also a hedge against a stuck starter contactor . . . Don't know what 'advantages' might be secured with permanent pathways between alternators and batteries. Bob . . .


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:29:22 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Is a battery contactor really needed?
    From: "rv8ch" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
    nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: > At 03:35 PM 4/12/2017, you wrote: > Don't know what 'advantages' might be secured > with permanent pathways between alternators > and batteries. Thanks for the feedback gents, looks like the off field landing scenario slipped my mind when thinking about this. The "advantages" I was thinking of were one less component, and the possible avoidance of a load dump if the alternator is pumping hard and the battery is disconnected. Avoiding issues with a load dump are pretty easy by following the recommended designs in the 'connection. Thanks for the tips! -------- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468379#468379




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --